If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Why the Men's Marriage Movement is Critical To Republicans
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive...sher112205.htm
Why the Men's Marriage Movement is Critical To Republicans November 23, 2005 by David R. Usher From the 1920's to the 1960's, feminists embraced the Republican party because it stood for equality between men and women. By the late 1960's, feminism digressed into areas revolting to Republicans, such as title IV, the ERA, abortion and freewheeling divorce. Feminists migrated to the Democrat party, over time manifesting a tragic transformation of marriage and society unfathomable prior to 1964. The National Organization for Women became deeply radical. In the name of "equality", it successfully executed a perverse anti-family crusade. Abortion became a sancrosanct right. Gender became a competition pitting the human race against itself. The "personal" became the "political" (if you happened to be a man). Sex became something women "use" to get what they want from men. Child abuse and domestic violence became spectacular publicized events - if the perpetrator was a male. College campuses and coursework fell under control of advocates in women's "interdisciplinary studies" programs. Feminist organizations appointed themselves the authoritative protectors, providers, and spokespeople for women and children. Men and non-feminists were not allowed to take social or political positions on these issues. Marriage was deemed "unnecessary" and transformed into a "trap". Liabilities for health care and welfare were passed on to government, who in turn handed husbands and boy-toys a large invoice. To resolve the intractable structural problem of single-mother family economics and achieve so-called "economic independence" for women and children, feminists invented a nuclear weapon for use against heterosexual marriage. The primary goal of "same sex marriage" is to preclude marriage, divorce, and illegitimacy entirely, so women can have all the socioeconomic benefits of marriage and family, leaving men the obligors funding it all. This goal was actually achieved last year in Massachusetts via the Goodridge decision The above is certainly not what Ronald Reagan had in mind when he signed the first no-fault divorce bill into law as Governor of California. It is clear there is little left of feminism that is moral, equalitarian, pro-social, or pro-economic. In fact, the greatest social problems we face, and even our national debt, exist because the feminist Inquisition was so successful. Why do so many conservatives give feminists the time of day? How were we fooled? Conservatives have no trouble finding the right position on abortion. But mainstreamers of both parties have had a very difficult time seeing through the smoke and mirrors feminists use to obfuscate marriage, divorce, domestic violence, and child abuse. There are volumes of feminist "science" that openly employ gendered data collection methodology, funneled through anecdotal distractions, to reach the foregone conclusion. Happy magnification by media inculcated us into a state of reverse-Victorianism. Instead of throwing wives out on the street for no reason whatsoever, we now do it to husbands. Neither shotgun marriages nor shotgun divorces are conservative goals One of the greatest lies of feminism is this: divorced men somehow deserve the divorces they are served. This is what feminists trained us to think. But divorce statistics do not lie. With a divorce rate of over 50% (about 75% of them filed by women), we would have to believe that over half the men in America are irresponsible, dangerous neanderthals. Many conservatives believe that if a man gets up every morning, puts one foot in front of the other, and works hard that he will have a lasting marriage. This may have held true when cultural and policy pressures expected marital responsibility of both spouses. Today, marital free-agency is an entitled women's activity -- the penalties and blame being overwhelmingly levied on essentially faultless men. I have met thousands of good men over the years who thought the "D" word only applied to all those "bad guys" out there, until an unexpected process server taught them otherwise. This is not to blame everything on women. It is perfectly legal and convenient to abort babies and marriages. Can we blame them for doing so in large numbers? The responsibility truly rests on the shoulders of the National Organization for Women and the National Women's Law Center. There is a perception that Men's Marriage Movement activists are just another collection of victims looking for a handout. This is what feminists want everyone to think. The men's movement is the burgeoning equalitarian movement seeking to better the futures of women and children by restoring vibrant marriage policy and law. This movement is working to restore a stable pro-economic marriage culture on which the great middle class was founded prior to 1964 - where divorce becomes substantially a frictional statistic. My father went to World War II to keep America free and worked hard to give me a better future. Now it is my job to give my sons something that I could not have - a reasonable expectation of being a husband, father, and legitimate member of society. We are working to restore marriage in both the secular and ecclesiastical worlds. Our commitment to marriage has never wavered. The policy reforms we offer are exactly what was called for in the findings issued by the 1993 National Commission on America's Urban Families, chaired by then-Missouri-Governor John Ashcroft, in the final days of the H.W. Bush administration. The Men's Marriage Movement is now offering up realistic policies that will demonstrably unwind the divorce revolution to the satisfaction of mainstream voters and politicians. Conservatives have been unable to deliver tangible improvements in marriage, divorce, or illegitimacy rates since 1994 because the Men's Marriage Movement has not yet been recognized for what it offers - the answer to the worst social, economic, and political problems America has faced since 1964. Even people of faith bought into feminist propaganda and hurt chances for reform. Promise Keepers collapsed immediately after Bill McCartney brutally blamed the divorce problem on the men dedicated to reclaiming god-given marriage from anti-religious feminists forces. Many religious leaders have assumed immoral positions rationalizing free-choice divorce. The bottom line: World War II would never have been fought to victory if we had blamed Jews for what Hitler did. We cannot win the war on family by blaming it all on men. Half-measures have availed little. Republicans are now caught in a political vise. The problems that fall out of father-absence have not abated since 1996. Liberal campaign grist is being generated over issues such as poverty, recently refurbished as an emotional "moral" issue rather than the structural marriage problem that it is. Family structure also drives the problems of health care coverage, child support enforcement, child abuse, bankruptcy, military recruitment, illegitimacy, and bankruptcy. Democrats can hardly wait to attack Republicans with these "homeland" issues in 2008. There is no reason for mainstream conservatives to cow-tow to the wiles of politicized feminism, which admittedly ran out of salient causes years ago. Most women and men do not buy into it. They personally found out that divorce has left more women and children in poverty than any war in American history. This public rejection of feminism is essentially what propelled the Republican congressional landslide in 1994. We have not yet capitalized on this fabulous opportunity. The bark of organized feminism has no bite. We have passed some excellent reforms here in Missouri, over the howls of feminists, while increasing Republican margins in the House, Senate, and even the Governors office. If we can do it in Missouri, anyone can. This may well be a crucial point in political history. President Bush's voter ratings are at an all-time low. Republicans are seen as being weak on social issues despite record spending. The party that brought about the 19 th amendment now has an historic opportunity to restore equality via the institution of marriage, giving men and women what they really want and need, and building voter loyalty well into the future. This course of action will automatically reduce deficit spending, illegitimacy, poverty, crime, domestic violence, teen drug use, and partially resolve the health care and bankruptcy problems. Can anyone imagine a more productive political strategy than this? -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Liberalism: that haunting fear that someone, somewhere, can help themselves without Government intervention. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Why the Men's Marriage Movement is Critical To Republicans
My father went to World War II to keep America free and worked hard to give me a better future. Now it is my job to give my sons something that I could not have - a reasonable expectation of being a husband, father, and legitimate member of society. Yes, we all have a war to fight, both men and women and it starts in the home. Our values and sense of decency has depleted to an all time low and it's high time we restore it. The attitude of just walk away if it's inconvenient or too much work has to change. It's too late for us, but our children have no sense of commitment or real family values and it's only made worse with our present policies on Abortion, Bankruptcy, Divorce, easy credit, the list goes on! We know the problems of how it got this way, but what are we going to do about it now? What kind of America are we giving our kids? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Why the Men's Marriage Movement is Critical To Republicans
"DB" wrote in message news My father went to World War II to keep America free and worked hard to give me a better future. Now it is my job to give my sons something that I could not have - a reasonable expectation of being a husband, father, and legitimate member of society. Yes, we all have a war to fight, both men and women and it starts in the home. Our values and sense of decency has depleted to an all time low and it's high time we restore it. The attitude of just walk away if it's inconvenient or too much work has to change. It's too late for us, but our children have no sense of commitment or real family values and it's only made worse with our present policies on Abortion, Bankruptcy, Divorce, easy credit, the list goes on! We know the problems of how it got this way, but what are we going to do about it now? What kind of America are we giving our kids? A terminal one, I fear. Phil #3 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Why the Men's Marriage Movement is Critical To Republicans
Dusty wrote: http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive...sher112205.htm Why the Men's Marriage Movement is Critical To Republicans November 23, 2005 by David R. Usher From the 1920's to the 1960's, feminists embraced the Republican party because it stood for equality between men and women. [Nonsense; even as late as the 1970 there were still restrictions implemented by REpublicans on women's lives and laws. For example, a woman needed her husband's signature to have her paycheck directly deposited in Utah, and women couldn't obtain procedures over their own bodies.] By the late 1960's, feminism digressed into areas revolting to Republicans, such as title IV, the ERA, abortion and freewheeling divorce. Feminists migrated to the Democrat party, over time manifesting a tragic transformation of marriage and society unfathomable prior to 1964. [Men simply were no longer eligible for social perks then. There is nothing unequal about Title IX , bodily rights, and the equal right to divorce.] The National Organization for Women became deeply radical. In the name of "equality", it successfully executed a perverse anti-family crusade. Abortion became a sancrosanct right. Gender became a competition pitting the human race against itself. The "personal" became the "political" (if you happened to be a man). Sex became something women "use" to get what they want from men. Child abuse and domestic violence became spectacular publicized events - if the perpetrator was a male. College campuses and coursework fell under control of advocates in women's "interdisciplinary studies" programs. [It's hard to ignore the truth... that men beat up and rape women, that the right to choose is a bodily right just like men's bodily rights, and that no one can be forced into a family. Also, if men don't want to pay for sex, they need not; they can just say no. ] Feminist organizations appointed themselves the authoritative protectors, providers, and spokespeople for women and children. [Not really; feminism is about equal rights for women, and in some fashion children may be affected by that. And feminists certainly have as much right as any other social group to have their positions heard.] Men and non-feminists were not allowed to take social or political positions on these issues. [Who stopped them, the feminist boogey man? :-) As to taking a position on equality, how equal is too equal?] Marriage was deemed "unnecessary" and transformed into a "trap". [No, marriage to pigs is a trap, or marriage to a man who won't do his fair share of the unpaid work, that's a trap. Marriage to egalitarian men would be better, albeit unequal laws 'round the world as they affect married women vs. single women.] Liabilities for health care and welfare were passed on to government, who in turn handed husbands and boy-toys a large invoice. [What they really handed you bitter boys was the responsibilty to care for your own aging parents, since women were no longer available for that UNPAID duty ....:-)] To resolve the intractable structural problem of single-mother family economics and achieve so-called "economic independence" for women and children, feminists invented a nuclear weapon for use against heterosexual marriage. [HOBOY! .....] The primary goal of "same sex marriage" is to preclude marriage, divorce, and illegitimacy entirely, so women can have all the socioeconomic benefits of marriage and family, leaving men the obligors funding it all. This goal was actually achieved last year in Massachusetts via the Goodridge decision [Gay marriage does not affect your marriage unless you're gay.] The above is certainly not what Ronald Reagan had in mind when he signed the first no-fault divorce bill into law as Governor of California. [Well, he may have believed that all women look at their husbands the way Nancy looked at Ronnie :-)] (edit) There is a perception that Men's Marriage Movement activists are just another collection of victims looking for a handout. This is what feminists want everyone to think. The men's movement is the burgeoning equalitarian movement seeking to better the futures of women and children by restoring vibrant marriage policy and law. [You can't "restore" what you don't own, and you don't own women or marriage or women's equal rights. The men's movement is not even making a skid-mark.] (edit) We are working to restore marriage in both the secular and ecclesiastical worlds. [Religion is the only place left where bitter twitters hold any sway at all and that is waning.] (edit) Even people of faith bought into feminist propaganda and hurt chances for reform. Promise Keepers collapsed immediately after Bill McCartney brutally blamed the divorce problem on the men dedicated to reclaiming god-given marriage from anti-religious feminists forces. Many religious leaders have assumed immoral positions rationalizing free-choice divorce. [It's true that men who want women to be second class citizens ...even in the family unit, shall be laughed at.] (edit) The bark of organized feminism has no bite. [In what way? Women have the equal rights to vote, own property, divorce, marry, sexual rights, reproductive rights, the right to work outside the home for equal pay. What rights are feminists losing?] We have passed some excellent reforms here in Missouri, over the howls of feminists, while increasing Republican margins in the House, Senate, and even the Governors office. If we can do it in Missouri, anyone can. [Like what? You SAY you've passed laws supporing your agenda and then provide no laws.] |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Why the Men's Marriage Movement is Critical To Republicans
"Hyerdahl" wrote in [It's hard to ignore the truth... that men beat up and rape women, that the right to choose is a bodily right just like men's bodily rights, Men do not beat up or rape women, very sick people beat up and rape women! It's a mental health issue! As for abortion, if you feel it's OK to extinguish a life because it's inconvenient to you, then go right ahead. How you can live with yourself afterward is anybody's guess, but you would be a pig in most decent people's eyes. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Why the Men's Marriage Movement is Critical To Republicans
DB wrote: "Hyerdahl" wrote in [It's hard to ignore the truth... that men beat up and rape women, that the right to choose is a bodily right just like men's bodily rights, Men do not beat up or rape women, very sick people beat up and rape women! It's a mental health issue! Well, it isn't WOMEN who are raping other women, dear, so who does that leave? As for abortion, if you feel it's OK to extinguish a life because it's inconvenient to you, then go right ahead. I plan to utilize my RIGHTS regardless of my personal feelings on abortion. How you can live with yourself afterward is anybody's guess, but you would be a pig in most decent people's eyes. Oink Oink, dear. You don't get to decide my rights. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Why the Men's Marriage Movement is Critical To Republicans
"Hyerdahl" wrote in Oink Oink, dear. You don't get to decide my rights. If you really believe it is your right to kill a child because it is an inconvenience to you, then by all means carry out your right as defined under the law. Then try explain your rights to God, or are you a godless soul that is already dead inside? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Why the Men's Marriage Movement is Critical To Republicans
Hyerdahl wrote:
From the 1920's to the 1960's, feminists embraced the Republican party because it stood for equality between men and women. [Nonsense; even as late as the 1970 there were still restrictions implemented by REpublicans on women's lives and laws. For example, a woman needed her husband's signature to have her paycheck directly deposited in Utah, and women couldn't obtain procedures over their own bodies.] Which Republican administration, or Republican-led Congress/Legislature, established these restrictions? -- "I ain't evil, I'm just good lookin'..." |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Why the Men's Marriage Movement is Critical To Republicans
Dusty wrote:
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive...sher112205.htm Why the Men's Marriage Movement is Critical To Republicans November 23, 2005 by David R. Usher From the 1920's to the 1960's, feminists embraced the Republican party because it stood for equality between men and women. So did blacks, until FDR started handing out "entitlements" in the 1930s. Basically, it was a conscious strategy to "buy" the black vote, which had historically been very stauchly pro-Republican up to that point. It worked, but it also destroyed a society and countless families and generations in the process... but I digress. By the late 1960's, feminism digressed into areas revolting to Republicans, such as title IV, the ERA, abortion and freewheeling divorce. Feminists migrated to the Democrat party, over time manifesting a tragic transformation of marriage and society unfathomable prior to 1964. Me thinks many men wanted more divorce freedom, also. The National Organization for Women became deeply radical. In the name of "equality", it successfully executed a perverse anti-family crusade. Abortion became a sancrosanct right. Gender became a competition pitting the human race against itself. The "personal" became the "political" (if you happened to be a man). Sex became something women "use" to get what they want from men. Child abuse and domestic violence became spectacular publicized events - if the perpetrator was a male. College campuses and coursework fell under control of advocates in women's "interdisciplinary studies" programs. While I believe much of the tone of what the author says has alot of truth to it, I hate blind extremism, in any direction, so I'm having a hard time getting all worked up. Feminist organizations appointed themselves the authoritative protectors, providers, and spokespeople for women and children. Men and non-feminists were not allowed to take social or political positions on these issues. Marriage was deemed "unnecessary" and transformed into a "trap". This last point cracked me up. A "trap" for who? Again, many men wanted greater divorce options, too, precisely to get away from the women they were married to. Portraying men as poor lost souls whacked upside the head with the divorce-2x4 is misleading, at best. There's plenty of blame to be shared. remainder snipped... the author went on way too long -- "I ain't evil, I'm just good lookin'..." |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Why the Men's Marriage Movement is Critical To Republicans
Dusty wrote:
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive...sher112205.htm Why the Men's Marriage Movement is Critical To Republicans November 23, 2005 by David R. Usher snipped Feminist organizations appointed themselves the authoritative protectors, providers, and spokespeople for women and children. I do find it ironic that organizations such as NOW wish to be an advocate for children, presumably all children, when approximately half of them are male and will grow up to be men, only to abandon some of those that they had advocated for earlier in life. -- "I ain't evil, I'm just good lookin'..." |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Republican Revolution or Men's Revolt? | Dusty | Child Support | 7 | November 20th 05 04:25 PM |
The No-Blame Game: Why No-Fault Divorce Is Our Most Dangerous Social Experiment | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | May 8th 05 06:27 AM |
Government vs. Marriage | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | January 28th 05 12:11 AM |
Marriage Tax Bonus Expansion = Singles Tax Penalty Expansion | Jumiee | Single Parents | 0 | June 9th 04 10:49 PM |
Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept | Bob Whiteside | Child Support | 213 | July 11th 03 10:57 AM |